DSI has nothing to do with the flight envelope, its there to improve airflow intake and engine performance across a range of altitudes and speeds. The pilot comments on the F-16 with the DSI described the plane, which had a PW F100-220 engine, that it felt more like one of those with the more powerful GE F110.

They did increase the size of the LERX so that is probably meant to improve high AoA.

I only used the L-1011 and DC-10 as examples; I was specifically asking about the apparent aversion of the military to build 3 engined planes. I appreciate your comments and they are what I more or less expected. maybe I’m wrong but I look at the automobile industry and see niches for 4-cylinder, 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder cars, etc.. why not the same for military aircraft? You can design an aircraft optimized for performance with 2 state-of-the-art engines but if you need a aircraft that’s say 30% larger, shouldn’t you consider adding a 3rd engine instead of making the jump to 4 engines?

I honestly don’t see the benefit of a third engine. The trijet is a creation of a strange civilian requirement, though this is not to say there are DC-10s going around as tankers.

There is nothing you can do with 2 engine or 4 engined craft that you would need a trijet for. Its not as economical as dual jet, or as powerful as quad jet. A trijet can be disadvantageous for somethings too.

For example, it’s a bad design to build an AWACS on. An overhead radome or balance beam is going to get in the way of the airflow to the third engine. I don’t think its a smart idea to put datalinks or small radomes on top of the plane too. But you can get away with that on conventional 2 or 4 engined planes.

Actually, there are four FC-1 prototypes already, and two of them, the last two, have avionics. Likewise the earlier planes may already have been converted to do avionics testing.

There are some rumors that preproduction planes for operational trials have already begun production.

The engine for the FC-1 is foreign sourced but the avionics, though Western inspired in design, are all Hecho en Chino.

There is a civilian aircraft section in this forum. Maybe it is more appropriate to send this question there.

But to answer your question, prior to the eighties and below, it is generally believed for large passenger liners you need more than 2 engines to provide that safety redudancy. If you lose one engine, and left with the remaining engine, the plane would be imbalanced and difficult to fly. As four engined planes might be too expensive, wallah, the three engined configuration meets those requirements. Please note that the most common trijet are not what you just mentioned, but the Boeing 727.

Quality and safety has improved to the point however, that this requirement is abandoned, and with considerations towards economy, dual jets became the norm.

Another factor was the power of the jet engines. Early, two engines were not powerful enough to move a medium sized jetliner, but when more powerful engines were introduced, two became enough.

Most interesting about the wing tanks.

I thought I had read somewhere that the wing tanks could only be carried in the 16 degree position, but I didn’t want to spout that off and have it be wrong so I figure why not ask.

Thanks Flex for the clarification on MiG-27 designations. I’m curious though….why can the MiG-27M not carry the KAB-500L?

Not really in the sense of physically carry. More like the plane cannot use the said bomb. The laser target designator got deleted from the MiG-27K to save the cost.

You are even reading that brochure wrong. That “4L” is supposed to be AL. So it’s actually -31FNAL not -31FN4L.

I cannot even trust your eyes.

Look at the cutaway carefully. There is boom or tail structure right between the engines. Look carefully at the engine cowling right next to the tail structure. Right where the gearbox is. It’s a firewall. And then there is another wall on the other side.

So where are you connecting both engines?

Now tell me with other examples like the F-15, the F-14. Look at the engine nacelles on both. Now remember the gearbox on each of their engines are on the BOTTOM. Now tell me how they can share transmissions?

Some urban myth are still living on. John Kelly designed the Starfighter with the lessons from Korea War in mind. Going high and going fast. So the wing-design was choosen for the best lift related to that. You ignore important details ….
Ever looked into the wing-sweep of the Zipper?!

And you think that’s what really counts?

Why don’t you measure the total wing area? Why don’t you check the camber? Why don’t you get the aspect ratio?

The wing is meant to reduce drag but that’s about it. Lift wasn’t the consideration, the plane was a rocket.

What I would like a detailed pic of is the square shaped VLS which was intsalled on the test ship at the same time as the HHQ-9 system was trialled to see if they are the same system. If they are it may suggest that the O54As missiles could work with the radar of the 052C, which would support my personal prediction that we will eventually see an 054 derivative with a radar based on that of the 052C’s (kinda like Norways Aegis frigates).

Actually, it could also mean the hot launch VLS could also work with the HHQ-9 missiles, which may also suggest that a future 052C derived variant could use this VLS as well.